Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the returned fields and the per-call cost ($0.045), which is real added context, but it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or whether results are paginated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short front-loaded sentences covering purpose, return content, and price, with no filler. Slightly terse, but every sentence carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately enumerates return fields, and it discloses cost. It is nearly complete for a simple 3-parameter search, though it omits result-shaping details like whether 'limit' caps the count and how many results a single call can return.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (query, location, limit) documented including examples and bounds, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no param-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (local businesses via Google Local), and enumerates the return fields, which clearly separates it from siblings like search_web, search_news, and search_images. It never explicitly names those siblings as alternatives, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing ('use search_web instead for general pages'). Usage is only implied by the phrase 'Local business search', leaving the agent to infer that this is for physical places.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.